[e2e] We do need anti-spam mechanism for e2e

Jon Crowcroft Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk
Sat Dec 27 16:08:34 PST 2003

In missive <Pine.GSO.4.50.0312272132180.10852-100000 at argos.ee.surrey.ac.uk>, Lloyd Wood typed:

 >>On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
 >>> there's a bit of a misunderstanding here - the spammers are mostly
 >>> engaged in free market economics - if they kill the market, then they
 >>> lose....not us...we never paid for this:-) we got 20 years of internet
 >>> for practically nothing

 >>those of us not close to retirement have a different perspective on

define "close" and "us"

 >>> why complain when someone wants to make a buck?
 >>pollution has an opportunity cost associated with dealing with it.
 >>("free market economics" are neither free nor economics.)
 >>I'm interested in subscriber churn on the list. I'd hazard a guess
 >>that people are leaving.

ok - sorry i duidnt spell out my argument

we live in a social system whatever we want - it is in some sort of dynamic
equilibrium of behaviour and misbehaviour

yes, so spamming is LOSING as the system goes thru a periodwhen people limit the
effectiveness of mail, maillists, bboards (and the web - look at popup, advert
inseerts etc) but this just shifts the equilibrium as the value of the polluted
sysatem falls to the point even the spammers cannot charge anyone....but (BUT) at this
point, folks like microsoft wakeup and realise that a MAJOR selling point of their
products (the internet in all its glory) is dying on its feet, and start to listen to
the folks proposing various (and there are quite a varieity of ) systems for moving
the equilibrium

some are economic, some legal - the memory bound version of hash cash/tcp puzzles is
one i like as it scales well in terms of scope and range of end users systems (end to
end argument - ) but does NOT stun the original feasibility of unsolicited email or
penalise the "poor"....
 >>> what we need to figure out is how to charge them and us the right
 >>> amount to distinguish the activities...(viz slashdot article on the
 >>> penny black project at microsoft)
 >>There's already a working and proven academic economic model.

 >>Peer-reviewed journals and conferences charge for their content and
 >>raise the bar on admissions.

 >>Editing to make the list and list web archives useful requires
 >>moderation work, automated or not -- though raising the bar on
 >>admissions (posts) is easy to do.

yes, agree - in this type of application/pattern of use, you are right - this is a way
to shift the equilibrium in this type of arena..

 >>without that work, end2end's academic worth is rapidly approaching




More information about the end2end-interest mailing list